I am very disappointed with your attitude to my post. I researched and cross checked every reference I could to make sure it was authentic and many of the references were confirmed by the Grand Lodge of Columbia Website, which has a vast library of Articles to do with Freemasonry and biographies on principal Freemasons.
The tone of your article reminded me of someone who is trying to put the enquirer off the scent for fear that he is finding out too much of the truth.
"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to know that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean of the characters and conduct of their rulers." - John Adams
And you seem to be advocating against this Tim. Freemasonry looks right, feels right and seems right, in the mirror but the image in the mirror is exactly the opposite of what is the real thing.
If you disagree with my findings, Why don't you pick out bits you disagree with and explain why and where I've got it wrong? You said that I had quoted "misguided opinions", which opinions, in your opinion, are misguided? You gave no examples, of course because I suggest to you that you couldn't find any!
People want to find out about the world about them and especially about organisations that have influence over society. For example, one poster in this thread has mentioned that his Presbyterian Church in Ireland issued a statement that membership of Freemasonary is not compatable with Church membership. He said my post explained why, so I disagree with what you said that I will "change nothing". If investigators didn't investigate Richard Nixon, he would never have been found out!
I'm surprised at you really because you appear to be pro anti-corruption, in the mirror and yet you are against researching the Masons!
When you look at your post in the cold light of day, your whole approach is no different to the flammers who use abuse to attack anyone who tries to challenge the status quo view and that's why you called me a "lunatic with an axe to grind". I would have more respect for if you had said that and then produced some evidence but you gave none!
You can call me all the names under the sun, Tim but the more you do, the more it will look like you are trying to cover up the truth on behalf of this fraternity, which has friends all over the Satanic underground. Remember the old adage? 'Show me your friends and I tell you who you are!'
I'm glad you enjoyed the "2001" post.